I’ve talked before about how all the focus on the racism of the past is helping us miss the newer and equally dumb racism of the present. This editorial about Tim Scott printed in the New York Times is a good example of that. Like look at this section:

But [Tim Scott’s] politics, like those of the archconservative Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, are utterly at odds with the preferences of most black Americans. Mr. Scott has been staunchly anti-tax, anti-union and anti-abortion.

Yes, the love the idea that if you have a certain amount of melanin in your skin, then you can only think one way on taxes. That’s totally a smart idea a newspaper should print and not the ranting of a moron racist.

You see, this new racism isn’t really any different than the old — it attempts to define everyone and put limitations on them based on their skin color — but just goes about it differently, usually from the angle that these people are the ones enlightened on race and everyone else is the racist. It’s pretty Orwellian. But if we are to advance as a society, a newspaper would no more consider printing an editorial by Adolph L. Reed than they would that of a KKK member.

8 Responses to “More of the New Racism in the NYT”

There are more and more warped pigment-only pundits braying all their pent-up hostility loud and clear these days.
They cheered OJ’s innocent verdict and the reelected, crack smokin’ mayor of DC.
I read one yesterday about why Mccain wanted Susan Rice’s scalp hanging on his door…That should offend even Susan Rice also
John McCain and most certainly Native Americans. I doubt it bothered Elizabeth Warren though.

It would be nice to see some polling pointing this out, but I just checked some online polling resources on abortion and no one, including the New York Times polls, seems to show how the answers to abortion questions varies by race. They often break down the results by age, party, ideology, and gender, but not by race.

I found a couple recent polls on union support too and they don’t break down the results by race either.

This part and parcel of all these Left Wing Nuts claiming that anything said is a “dog-whistle” is simply like all other ploys. Lefties want to shut down all dialogue by implying that anything other than their “Party Line” is Racism instead of dissent. For years they have searched for any way they could shut Conservatives up.
When they have been forced to discuss matters, they can never actually win with logic. This allows them to argue their emotions (and we all know that “feelings” are more important than facts) and shut down all opposing views and discussions.

This President (sic) has surrounded himself minorities and females who agree with his lack of ideas and non-thinking. So that if anything scandalous
or illegal happens and the questions start there are Lefties ready to jump up and do a full chorus of “RACIST”/”GENDER BASHER” blues for the MSM to take to heart.

We need a front line of Republicans who can ridicule!
The “YOU LIE”, gave both Polosi & BamBam facial tics for a few days.
Someone or better yet a group, Snorting and chuckling like “plugs” did at the debate, would work wonders when Bernanke talks of money.
You can see what it does to Carney when he’s pushed a bit…it’s time to kick him in the slats with some insults and ” you’re lying—send out somebody higher up,”
And definitely more shouts of “You lie” when Obama starts serpentining through his agenda!

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And He did despair, for in His omniscience, He did know that His creations had but three-fifths of the splendor of that which would be IMAO."
-No One of Consequence

"A blogger with a sense of humor."
-Some Woman on MSNBC

"It was something of great contentment getting to your site this morning."
-A Spam Comment